Correspondence from Edmisten and Wallace to Leonard; Motion to Consolidate and Request for Three-Judge Court
Public Court Documents
January 27, 1982

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Correspondence from Edmisten and Wallace to Leonard; Motion to Consolidate and Request for Three-Judge Court, 1982. 0e6e2dbb-d792-ee11-be37-6045bddb811f. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/0999d90f-2995-44bc-a41f-fb0fa11fbc1e/correspondence-from-edmisten-and-wallace-to-leonard-motion-to-consolidate-and-request-for-three-judge-court. Accessed August 02, 2025.
Copied!
A" iU7U3 L EOI.I3TEN ^ttottriY Olilr/lL $tutc sl F*tIf @arolinu pcpurlmad of Slusticr P. O. Box 629 RALEIGH 27602 January 27, L982 JL l 'l llAZ lltu::icrlls, r:::::;x; YrATr, lltrusi it;lJis & FLtttfl. P[] Honorable J. Rich Leonard, Clerk tinited States District Court IjJstern District Federal Building Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 RE: Gingles v. Edmisten, Civil No. 81-803-CIV-5 Pugh v. Hunt, Civil No. 81-1006-CIV-5 Dear }lr. Leonard: Enclosed please find, for filing, four copies of defendants' titotion to Consolidate and Request for Three-Judge Court. The Motion, of course, concerns the above-entitled matters. Counsel for all plaintiffs have been contacted, and all have authorized me to inform you thattkre! consent to the consolidation. In light of that fact, w€ have not prepared a brief in support of the notion- lf, in spite of the consent of aIl parties, the loca1 rules sti11 require the filing of a briefr w€ will be more than willing to do so, if you so advise. A11 parties have also agreed to provide the Court with a stipulation regarding the new discovery schedule shortly. f wiLl prepare and forward that stipulation to you upon its completion. Please return a copy of the "filed' Motj-on to me at your convenience. Thank you for your usual cooperation. Very truly yours, RUFUS L. EDMTSTEN peputy Attorney General >P, Legal Affairs "r':rfiWl .fw.fn,/dm IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE FASTERN DISTRTCT OF NORTH CAROLINA RALEIGH DTVISTON RALPII GINGLES, etc. , et aI. , Plaintiffs, v. RUFUS EDMfSTEN, etc., et al., ) ) ) ) ) crvrL No. Br-803-crv-5 ) ) ) )Defcndants. ALAN V. PUGH, etc., et a1., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) crvrl, No. B1-1066-crv-5 ) JAI,IES B. HUNT, JR., CtC., €t 31., ) ) Defendants. ) r,loTrgrr T9 coNSoLrpATE gNg REgUEST poR THRFE-JUpGF COUFT COME NOItr thc def endants in each of the above-entitl-ed actions, and move the court to order a complete consolidation of the above- entitLed actions, for all purposes, pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure; and hereby reguest a three-judge court to hear the actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 52284. fn support of the motion, and as grounds therefor, defendants state: 1. Each action challenges the constitutionalitv of the State's apportionment plans for the House of Representatives and Senate of the North Carolina General Assembly and also alleqes violations of tl:e Voting p.ights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 51973. (plaintiffs Ralph Gingles, €t d1., have also challenged the plans for the Second and Fourth Congressional Districts. ) 2. Each action involves common questions of lavr and fact. relating to the enactment of redistricting plans for the North Carolina House and Senate in compliance with the thited States Constitution and the r.zoting Rights Act of 1965. Rel-ief relatino to legislative apportionment, if dDy, granted to the plaintiffs must be consistent. -2- 3. The defendants defenses are the same in each action. 4. Each action reguires the conveninq of a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 52284 and 42 U.S.C. S1973c. 5. Each action seeks to represent a class wl:ich may include overlappinq members. No prejudj-ce to any party will result from a consolidation of said actions. consoridation will avoid a multiplicity of suits, will save considerable time and expense for the court, counsel, and all parties, will expedite the presentation of evidence at trial proceediDgS, and rqi11 be in the furtherance of j ustice . Respectfullv submitted, rhis the e7_ day of *7, tsa2. RUFUS L. EDMTSTEII ATTORNEY GENFRAL James Attorney General's bffice Ilorth Carolina Department of Justice Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Telephone: (919) 733-3377 Norma Harrell Tiare Smiley Assistant Attorneys General John Lassiter Associate Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Of Counsel: Jerris Leonard & 900 17th Street, Suite 1020 Washington, D. C. Telephone: (202) Associates, P.C. N.W. 20005 872-1095 Deputy Attornev Geneddl for Legal Affairsl' -?- CERTITICATE OF SERVICE . f hereby certify that f have this day served the foregoing Motion to Consolidate and Request for Three-Judge Court upon plaintiffsr attorneys by placing a copy of said Motion in the United States Post Office, Postage prepaid, addressed to: iI.. Levonne Chambers LesLie Winner Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas, Adkins & FuL1er, P.A. 951 South Independence Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Jack Greenberg \ James H. Nabiit III NapeoJ.eon B. Williams, Jr. 10 Col,umbus Circ1e New York, New York 1001,9 Arthur J. Donal,dson Burke, Donaldson, Holshouser & KererlY 309 tlorth Main Street Salisbury, North Carolina 28L44 Robert N. Hunter, Jr. Attorney at Lar..r Post Office Box 3245 201 West llarket Street Greensboro, North Carolina 27402 ,, This the e1 day of I